Lechmere validity

[Elamarna]

You rarely seem amused, though. Strange, that. You know, shouting "bias" is not the way to go about an honest debate. Then again, who said you wanted that in the first place...?

Well that could be fixed by dropping the Bias and working based on the evidence, not on assumption and speculation.

Basing speculation on other speculation is no way to achieve an honest outcome.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Once again, we all know quite well that the London streets were not closed to Lechmere at any stage - he was allowed to go to work via Brighton, even. It is not rocket science, I´m afraid, and nobody is saying it is - much less "diverting" anything at all.

I do think that the only person out here with no need of any diversions whatsoever is me. It´s the rest who are stating one formidable whopper after the other, disagreeing with the police is consistent with innocence, it was less conspicious to be alone on the streets than to trek together, it is proven that Mizen lied or misled etcetera.

That, my fine friend, is what diversions look like - rather like certified balderdash.

Still ignoring the question Patrick asked, and arguing something completely different.

Why?

Well that's simplythat you cannot countenance the possibility that Lechmere could have just disappeared after the 31st if he had wanted.
No one knew his name, home address or work place, and if he had taken the route i speculated on, it is highly unlikely he would have been found.


And that cannot be allowed to stand, as it shoots serious holes in the idea that he was forced to appear at the inquest.


It is not Proven Mizen lied, it never can be just as it can never be proven Lechmere lied. However, the weight of evidence in my opinion strongly suggests that mizen told an untruth.


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n710537]

Of course, I am not to be trusted, but you may want to correct the brown dot. If you want it all to be correct, that is. Others have informed you about the Llewellyn part, I see.

Yes, its creeping into Pereira Street, and so could be a touch further East and north. Well spotted, praise where its due.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Still ignoring the question Patrick asked, and arguing something completely different.

Why?

Well that's simplythat you cannot countenance the possibility that Lechmere could have just disappeared after the 31st if he had wanted.
No one knew his name, home address or work place, and if he had taken the route i speculated on, it is highly unlikely he would have been found.


And that cannot be allowed to stand, as it shoots serious holes in the idea that he was forced to appear at the inquest.


It is not Proven Mizen lied, it never can be just as it can never be proven Lechmere lied. However, the weight of evidence in my opinion strongly suggests that mizen told an untruth.


Steve

We know that none of the answers make sense. We're asked to believe a man trying to get away with murder, and with the option to simply walk away, would stay. We're asked to believe that he'd ask a stranger to "come see" his victim. We're asked to believe he would then willingly go with that man to find a policeman. We're asked to believe that he lied to the policeman in the presence of the man he'd just met four minutes earlier (or that he managed a private conversation, somehow out of his hearing, without that seeming strange enough for that man to remark upon). We're asked to believe he did these things with the murder weapon on his person. Now, we're asked to believe that, having made it through this self-imposed, nonsensical maze of danger, he then appeared at the inquest, voluntarily, lied about what he told the PC again... because he didn't want to go out of his way to get to work. Even though he often must have gone out of his way to work in that he, you know, trolled for prostitutes to kill along his route each day. And Christer somehow thinks applying the word "laughable" to all this is somehow out of bounds.....

[JeffHamm]

Well i worked on 102.5 yards per min, and have a slightly different distance to work, but its only yards.

i think those timings are good.

Hi Steve,

Yah, I've noticed when using the measurement tools that measuring the same distance a few times can give different results for the distances. I measured 3 possible routes for Cross/Lechmere from home to Nichols (just slightly different side streets) and in Fisherman's documentary they timed the walk at 7 minutes 7 seconds, so I used that and got a range of speeds from 103.4 to 104.3 type thing, with the average of the 3 of them being 104 y/s or 3.6 miles/hour, which is a bit above the modern average walking speed of 3.1 (according to Google, the source of all truth and knowledge ). While Cross/Lechmere was probably shorter than Fishmerman, I did a bit of digging into research relating walking speeds and height, and from the couple of articles found, height influences maximum walking speed, but apparently has less impact on the "comfortable walking speed" (the longer stride length of taller people gets countered by the increased energy required to move the limb, so normal walking speeds tend to converge over a wider range of heights). Given people would walk much more in 1888 than today, and given Cross/Lechmere is behind schedule, Fisherman's estimated time seems perfectly logical. Either way, all of these sorts of things will have a range of error associated with them, but the important overall trend is that Cross/Lechmere can get to work on time, which he apparently did, provided he's not much later than 3:37 at the crime scene.

- Jeff

[GUT]

I disagree very much. the one exception I can see is if the people travelling in company were of a rough appearance - an obvious street gang or so. Otherwise, it would benefit any person to trek together with another man. Sorry, but that was always the rule.

Do you still think that disagreeing with a PC is a good indicator of innocence, by the way...?

I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent wth innocence,

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n710537]

Of course, I am not to be trusted, but you may want to correct the brown dot. If you want it all to be correct, that is. Others have informed you about the Llewellyn part, I see.

Thanks for that Fisherman. I redid the map, correcting the police station and had tidied up the Paul location (it's now a dark red/maroon dot as the brown didn't show up as well). I think I've got it on it on the right street now and a bit tidier, as yes, the previous one did blob out a bit as a smaller brown dot was hard to see.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Yah, I've noticed when using the measurement tools that measuring the same distance a few times can give different results for the distances. I measured 3 possible routes for Cross/Lechmere from home to Nichols (just slightly different side streets) and in Fisherman's documentary they timed the walk at 7 minutes 7 seconds, so I used that and got a range of speeds from 103.4 to 104.3 type thing, with the average of the 3 of them being 104 y/s or 3.6 miles/hour, which is a bit above the modern average walking speed of 3.1 (according to Google, the source of all truth and knowledge ). While Cross/Lechmere was probably shorter than Fishmerman, I did a bit of digging into research relating walkitng speeds and height, and from the couple of articles found, height influences maximum walking speed, but apparently has less impact on the "comfortable walking speed" (the longer stride length of taller people gets countered by the increased energy required to move the limb, so normal walking speeds tend to converge over a wider range of heights). Given people would walk much more in 1888 than today, and given Cross/Lechmere is behind schedule, Fisherman's estimated time seems perfectly logical. Either way, all of these sorts of things will have a range of error associated with them, but the important overall trend is that Cross/Lechmere can get to work on time, which he apparently did, provided he's not much later than 3:37 at the crime scene.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,
Yes i Settled on 3.5 mph as my prefered speed, above average but reasonable I think. Also easier to work with than 3.6
I actually use data for 2.5 up to 5mph.
The point has you rightly say is that he could get to work before 4am.

Yes the measuring tool is very delicate and a ml out will give a different reading.

There are also a couple of short cuts, which shave a minute or so off the time.

Steve


Steve

[JeffHamm]

I can´t tell you a story that fits with the evidence and involve ducking into another street? I already have, Jeff. And to rub salt into your wounds, here it is again:

None of us knows how long time was used by the carmen to walk to Mizen. None of us knows which speed was employed. Therefore, none of us knows if there was time to duck into a side street for a quick check for a PC - after all, they DID look for one.

You can of course say that you consider it proven that they could not have done it. The drawback of that is, however, that it will prove that you are misrepresenting the evidence.

Ok, we're working on different definitions of story then. I was meaning something specific, who went up a side street, one of them or both of them, if one why does the other wait for them? I can't see either of them taking side trips since both are in a hurry to get to work on time and given PC's on beats were not uncommon, their route to work would (and did) provide a PC for them to find. So a side trip conflicts with that evidence we have, it postulates behaviors inconsistent with their known situations. If only one of them went on a side trip, why would the other wait and not continue on to work, for the same reason. We also have the testimony that from the time of seeing the body until finding PC Mizen was no more than 4 minutes. Time estimation is error prone, of course, so some variation in this could be included and not "break" the evidence (let's say we allow for that to be up to 6 minutes, a 1 minute side trip and 1 minute back) to make temporal room for this side trip. But, we know the distance from Nichols to where PC Mizen was spotted, and based upon your estimation of walking speed to cover the distance from Cross/Lechmere's residence to Nichols (which, by the way, I think sounds perfectly reasonable) we know that from Nichols to PC Mizen would take about 3 minutes, or shortly less. The interactions at the body between Cross/Lechmere and Paul have been argued to require 1 to 1.5 minutes, and so that ends up with our 4 minutes between Paul seeing the body and arriving at PC Mizen. Now, if we expand that time to 6 minutes, allowing for errors in estimation, and we know that PC Mizen testifies that he met Cross/Lechmere at 3:45, that means they left the body at 3:39, and Paul arrived and saw the body at 3:38, and since Lechmere had to wait for Paul to cover the 30-40 yards, that would mean Cross/Lechmere arrived at the scene at 3:37 and change, and now everything does still fit with the time evidence, but it still conflicts with the choices people would make when their late for work and know they will find a PC on route. And I know you're not going to like how the times work there.

So, the evidence, combined, means there's no time left available for them to make a side trip unless we take an extreme value for the Nichols-PC Mizen journey time to give us room, and we need for Cross/Lechmere to get to work by 4:00, and we know they're both running late which means they have a strong motivation not to make a side trips since we know PC can be found on their regular route and finally, there is nothing in the testimony to suggest a side trip, the whole side trip notion is just a hypothesis plucked from thin air. That's the evidence, and the evidence constrains us with regards to the time available for a side trip and whether or not the two of them have a motivation to make one and the testimony of what they did indicates they went direct from Nichols to PC Mizen.

So, if you think side trips are still possible, you're ignoring the constraints put on what is possible by the evidence we have.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,
Yes i Settled on 3.5 mph as my prefered speed, above average but reasonable I think. Also easier to work with than 3.6
I actually use data for 2.5 up to 5mph.
The point has you rightly say is that he could get to work before 4am.

Yes the measuring tool is very delicate and a ml out will give a different reading.

There are also a couple of short cuts, which shave a minute or so off the time.

Steve


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yah, I set up all the calculations in Excel, so the values that get calculated from one source (like yards/min from Lechmere's walk to Nichols) just get carried over into other calculations. And yes, there are multiple routes between Lechmere's residence and his work even being constrained by the fact we know he headed off down Hanbury Street with Paul after they spoke to PC Mizen. I just eye-balled the map and looked for what appeared to be the most direct route and haven't yet done a systematic exploration of the range of possibilities. I seem to recall there being some statement that includes where the two of them parted ways, but I haven't tracked that down again yet, but that would at least help constrain the options a wee bit. At some point, I'm going to use the more detailed maps that include house numbers, etc, and measure the various distances a few times in order to try and average out the error that can be introduced by the imprecision of the tool. I doubt it will make any real practical difference, given the margin of error associated with trying to remember how long something took (which is what we get from testimony, not actual times but estimations of recollected time). Still, trying to minimize the error where we can can't hurt. What I'm impressed by, actually, is how well the testimony times tend to fit with the calculated estimates. But I suppose, when people weren't wearing/carrying watches all the time, they would probably have developed more expertise than we have now with respect to keeping track of time as their day to day living required them to do so.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,
I see Steve has already pointed out the location of Llewellyn's address. But just for extra info, the 1899 Goad map (Vol XI sheet 328) shows both the old and new numbers for the Whitechapel Road, showing the number change took place between 1888 and 1899. The surgery is numbered 152 crossed out (old number) and 313 (new number).

Thanks! That's useful to know.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>No, the newspaper reports do not confirm that Mizen lied at all, I'm afraid.<<

Could you quote the post number and exact wording, in context, where I claimed the newspaper reports "confirm that Mizen lied"?

Sadly, you have this well recognized habit of either inventing comments from people or, as in this case, editing out relevant parts to alter the meaning.

So, tell where was it written?

[drstrange169]

>>No, it is not a fact that Mizen misled the jury. If he had answered Baxters question with a "no", he would have misled them.<<

If he had not misled the jury up to that point, why did Baxter ask the question?

It is self evident that Baxter felt the jury did not know relevant information, that Mizen, as a experienced policeman, should have told the jury. Ergo, there is doubt over Mizen's testimony. When you add in the other discrepancies in his testimony, we don't know whether Mizen was careless or crafty, but either way an unbiased researcher approaches his claims with caution.



>>It as not as if not mentioning all the details involved is the same thing as misleading.<<

It is, if your testimony is different from another witness and you conveniently forget to mention someone who can confirm or deny the dispute.



>>Therefore, claiming that Mizen misled is the one and only misleading there is around.<<

No, the only misleading thing around here is you altering what people say.

Now how about showing us where I claimed the newspapers proved Mizen lied?

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I've done a quick calculation of the distance from Polly's murder location to the police station (using one of the high detail maps that labels it specifically) and ended up with a distance of 1034 yards. At the walking pace that I've been using (104 yards/min) that's about a 10 minute trip at an above average walking speed. Assuming the return trip with the ambulance would be a bit slower due to having to push it, we're probably looking at PC Mizen being away from the scene for a minimum of 20 minutes, and say up to 25 minutes (as I'm assuming it wouldn't take him long to get the ambulance and start the return journey). Now, if we have a good idea of when Polly was loaded on to the ambulance and removed to the mortuary, we can use that to put some limits on when PC Mizen had to have returned to the scene with the ambulance, and start getting some estimates about his arrival time at the scene. Obviously, there will be quite a bit of play around these estimates as he could have returned well before they decided to move her, but at least we can start trying to estimate the latest he could have returned, etc. I have some memory about reading she was removed from the scene at 4:15, but I'm not sure where I get that from and it also feels a bit like it could be a false memory.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>I've updated the map with that information. I think I've got the station about right (hard to translate between the two, due to the different levels of detail, but let me know if that looks about right to you.<<

Hello Jeff,

You might find this thread useful,

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/8895-buck-s-row-timings